Child Act 'pushes promiscuity'

bwana said:
Then I'm afraid you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Lets start over.

Why do you equate being responsible for your kids with laying down the law to them. What does one have to do with the other?

EDIT - btw I do feel that a parents enforcement of unrealistic rules in an attempt to unnecessarily control a child are tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so do I, but I think "unrealistic rules" is a little grey. Different strokes for different folks - kids are all different and react differently - the catch is no in the law but in the attitude of the parent... frustration? anger? love? how close are you to your kids? how well do you know them, how much time do you spend together? all those things play a part. I have had to lay down the law with my kids when they have stuck their toe over the line, a number of times, and any parent who claims they have never had to do that is in my opinion either fooling themselves or just dont care. It need not be tyrannical, if it's love.
 
noxibox said:
What is moral?
Click to expand...

The association between sexual activity and early childhood is immoral.
Young kids, as young as 12, or 13 or 14, should not be having sex, with each other, older kids and obviously adults. Entrenching the right of these undisciplined kids, to ask for contraception is not wrong per se, but it is
immoral in the context that alternative methods of prevention of the said
promiscuity are not followed and certainly not legislated. So instead of for example pushing abstinance and the innocence of childhood and
family life, the SA government pushes CONDOMS as the ultimate panacea
for everything. Since sex is often spontanous and our society is extremely
chauvinistic usually not allowing women/girls the choice anyhow condoms are
not the ultimate answer anyhow. Anyway, it's like forcing people to wear seat belts but not bothering
to make sure they know how to drive in the first place. Yes it's a good idea,
but these people shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place, let's
find ways to prevent them from doing this.
 
groundnut said:
Yeah, so do I, but I think "unrealistic rules" is a little grey. Different strokes for different folks - kids are all different and react differently - the catch is no in the law but in the attitude of the parent... frustration? anger? love? how close are you to your kids? how well do you know them, how much time do you spend together? all those things play a part. I have had to lay down the law with my kids when they have stuck their toe over the line, a number of times, and any parent who claims they have never had to do that is in my opinion either fooling themselves or just dont care. It need not be tyrannical, if it's love.
Click to expand...
Great - if you've resolved that to your satisfaction perhaps you could answer my question now. ;)
 
a moral is to do with what is right and wrong... or what society sees as right or wrong at a given time. morals changes as society changes and what becomes acceptable in society are based on peoples current moral views at the time.
 
bwana said:
Why do you equate being responsible for your kids with laying down the law to them. What does one have to do with the other?
Click to expand...
bwana said:
Great - if you've resolved that to your satisfaction perhaps you could answer my question now.
Click to expand...
I did answer it...
groundnut said:
Yeah, so do I, but I think "unrealistic rules" is a little grey. Different strokes for different folks - kids are all different and react differently - the catch is no in the law but in the attitude of the parent... frustration? anger? love? how close are you to your kids? how well do you know them, how much time do you spend together? all those things play a part. I have had to lay down the law with my kids when they have stuck their toe over the line, a number of times, and any parent who claims they have never had to do that is in my opinion either fooling themselves or just dont care. It need not be tyrannical, if it's love.
Click to expand...

Laws and boundaries are good for kids and their feeling secure for starters. If you don't lay down the groundrules and enforce them consistently from an early age, they will learn to rebel and manipulate to get what they want . Therefore I am saying that laying down the law for your children is responsible parenting.
 
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or whatever.

I think I should be gratefull. I got my son through primary-, high school and varsity without bcoming a grand dad.

Some or other time your nuts and your brains are going to change places.

Regardless what is being said it is going to happen.;)
 
PeterCH said:
Young kids, as young as 12, or 13 or 14, should not be having sex, with each other, older kids and obviously adults.
Click to expand...
these days it isnt acceptable (by adults) that children of that age should be sexually active. in the old days (my grandparents parents), the girlies would be married YOUNG and have a bunch of kids before they 18.

times have changed, but people have not evolved to a stage where they can ignore their urges. come to think of it, i want some fanta RIGHT now... and nobody can stop me...
 
Getafix said:
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or whatever.

I think I should be gratefull. I got my son through primary-, high school and varsity without bcoming a grand dad.

Some or other time your nuts and your brains are going to change places.

Regardless what is being said it is going to happen.;)
Click to expand...

I understand your concern, but maybe my folks did something right or I was lucky to get married a virgin?
 
it is up to me, imo, as a parent to decide when my child, within the legal age guidelines, is permitted to have sex
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. You might want to try nailing jello to a tree first. It's a lot easier.
 
When I was a teenager almost every one of the most rebellious kids - the ones that were drinking, smoking and having sex whenever possible (behind their parents' backs obviously) - were the ones that came from very strict, controlling homes.
 
Eniigma said:
Am I missing something or is not the legal age for sexual activity 16 and any sexual activity before that age, defined as a form of rape (cannot remember the exact age), even if consensual or involving two people under that age? So if that still stands, then surely anyone supplying condoms to someone under that age, thereby an accessory to this rape?
Click to expand...

You are missing something. Before the age of 12 (if there is a participant over a certain age) it is statuatory rape (willing or unwilling participants regardless). Between 12 and 16 it is indecent assault if the one partner is above 18 (if the "underage" participant is wiling). And above 18 you can do who you want. When one partner is nonconsensual to the act, it is rape regardless of the age of anyone involved...

While Im not 100% sure of my detials, that i how i understand it works.
 
noxibox said:
When I was a teenager almost every one of the most rebellious kids - the ones that were drinking, smoking and having sex whenever possible (behind their parents' backs obviously) - were the ones that came from very strict, controlling homes.
Click to expand...

Its true, almost directly proportional actually. I suppose they feel like they have more to rebel against.
 
Leitmotif said:
Here's a point, though... when I was 12-ish, we used to take free condoms from clinics to use as waterbombs. So, were those ever restricted? Another: would a condom designed for an adult even fit a 12 year old? Wouldn't ill-fitting condoms increase the risk of breakage?
Click to expand...
In reality anyone can walk into a family planning clinic, pick up condoms and walk out. They can also be found in other government buildings and private businesses. There is currently nothing stopping anyone of any age who knows what they need and where to get it from acquiring condoms. The more important group are those who are not sure and come asking for advice. Turning them away without information or contraceptives is not a solution.

Eniigma said:
Yes I believe that anything that makes it eaiser for them will encourage them.
Click to expand...
They already have all the necessary equipment and hormones. There is no reason to believe preventing access to contraceptives is going to prevent them from having sex.

Eniigma said:
Offering this to under aged child sends out a mixed signal to them... on the one hand we are saying you are not allowed to shag until 16/18/ whatever the age is, but on the other we are saying here you go, have a condom and a good time. Does not make sense really.
Click to expand...
They're being given access to contraceptives and presumably advice at the same age they're legally allowed to have sex, so there is no problem of inconsistency.
 
I know church camps is where I will never send my kid. A bunch of teens trying to outdo each other to see who is the biggest rebel. No thanks.
 
noxibox said:
When I was a teenager almost every one of the most rebellious kids - the ones that were drinking, smoking and having sex whenever possible (behind their parents' backs obviously) - were the ones that came from very strict, controlling homes.
Click to expand...

Strange, as a teenager I found the opposite. The ones doing that where the ones that came from homes with no rules, or parents too busy with their own lives to pay attention to thier children. The ones that came from strict, loving homes where not. I guess the key to it though is just how involved the parental units are.
 
PeterCH said:
The association between sexual activity and early childhood is immoral.
Young kids, as young as 12, or 13 or 14, should not be having sex, with each other, older kids and obviously adults. Entrenching the right of these undisciplined kids, to ask for contraception is not wrong per se, but it is
immoral in the context that alternative methods of prevention of the said
promiscuity are not followed and certainly not legislated. So instead of for example pushing abstinance and the innocence of childhood and
family life, the SA government pushes CONDOMS as the ultimate panacea
for everything. Since sex is often spontanous and our society is extremely
chauvinistic usually not allowing women/girls the choice anyhow condoms are
not the ultimate answer anyhow. Anyway, it's like forcing people to wear seat belts but not bothering
to make sure they know how to drive in the first place. Yes it's a good idea,
but these people shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place, let's
find ways to prevent them from doing this.
Click to expand...

When I was 12ish I sure at hell wanted to bang my attractive younger teachers (obviously the crush scenerio) and my pretty classmates, I can even remember their names clearly. Did I bang them? No, but I wanted to. Was I in love at times? Definately. Did I kiss some of them? Yes. Would I have had sex if it had happened? Yes, in that clumsy way.

Was I sexually or otherwise abused? No. Was I ever exposed to porn? No, not at all, but I actually did draw my own porn at one time :p (I sucked bad at the drawing thing). Did I know how it mostly worked? Yes, I was a smart kid, not difficult to figure out.
 
Eniigma said:
Strange, as a teenager I found the opposite. The ones doing that where the ones that came from homes with no rules, or parents too busy with their own lives to pay attention to thier children. The ones that came from strict, loving homes where not. I guess the key to it though is just how involved the parental units are.
Click to expand...

I think the people that are "best off" or least likely to do things are the ones that come from fairly moderate homes where there is still control and there are rules but they're reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X